Ricky Ponting rates Lara above Tendulkar

[Satan666]

Check for Tendulkar against England in England as compared to Lara. Lara`s average against England is massively bloated by his two scores of 375* and 400*.

Fair enough, lets just conveniently forget the first and third highest individual scores ever in test cricket.

 

[namin96]

I would like to point out that Lara didn't score 400 in England, he scored it in the West Indies against England in reference to the previous post. Also Lara's average being bloated by these two significant scores doesn't say much as Tendulkar's overall away performing average has been significantly higher than Lara's and Tendulkar has shown his incredible ability to perform on any type of surface away from home, which I think means Tendulkar gets the edge over Lara. However they both are great, but I would give the edge to Tendulkar for his ability to perform and adapt on any surface.

 

[Satan666]

I would like to point out that Lara didn't score 400 in England, he scored it in the West Indies against England in reference to the previous post. Also Lara's average being bloated by these two significant scores doesn't say much as Tendulkar's overall away performing average has been significantly higher than Lara's and Tendulkar has shown his incredible ability to perform on any type of surface away from home, which I think means Tendulkar gets the edge over Lara. However they both are great, but I would give the edge to Tendulkar for his ability to perform and adapt on any surface.

Yes and that's why he is ranked number 25 in test cricket he has certainly adapted to scoring on an average 25 on each and every test ground he has played on in the last three years!

people as i've said the real comparison is between Ponting and Lara as to who is the better batsman, (notice i started this sentence with a common letter).

 

[used2bcool]

I'm pretty sure the discussion is about Tendulkar, Ponting, and Lara in their primes, so Tendulkar's current Test ranking is utterly irrelevant since we can all agree that he's past his prime.

But... don't let facts or common sense get in your way.

For me, Tendulkar was probably a better batsman than Lara based on their respective records and all those arguments repeated ad nauseum, but Lara had that stylish, extravagant strokeplay that was something to behold when it came off, especially when he dismantled spinners.

 

[Satan666]

I'm pretty sure the discussion is about Tendulkar, Ponting, and Lara in their primes, so Tendulkar's current Test ranking is utterly irrelevant since we can all agree that he's past his prime.

But... don't let facts or common sense get in your way.

For me, Tendulkar was probably a better batsman than Lara based on their respective records and all those arguments repeated ad nauseum, but Lara had that stylish, extravagant strokeplay that was something to behold when it came off, especially when he dismantled spinners.

If your discussion is based primarily on all players at their peak, then Lara leads in front, since we can disgard the fact that Tendulkar is consistent, surely at their peaks they were consistent. Without consistency how tendulkar is ahead defeats all odds! Then you go on to say that Lara was stylish and extravagant and handled the spinners well in a time when the best spinner ever to play the game Shane Warne and the best chucker ever who happens to be a spinner also, Murali bowled to Lara over his career.

See mate its inevitable, all you guys arguing in Sachin's favour are not facing the facts, youre posting them like you just did above, but not accepting that Sachin is not a god but a meager mortal when compared to Lara.

----------

I feel Tendulkar has entered the "bohemian rhapsody" legendary status, if you talk of the best ever song people talk on about bohemian rhapsody as if it is written in stone, not necessarily as the best, but it is a pretty ordinary song in my book and the novelty of it wasn't even that novel given John Miles' "Music" in 1974 was much the same. It's too jerky, it's too meh, but like Tendulkar, it is hyped. That isn't to say Tendulkar isn't a top top player, but just that judgement of him is swayed by default - maybe "consensus of opinion" rules uber alles.

Would definitely have either of Tendulkar or Lara before Ponting, but for me Lara just edges a very close contest.

This post was made in the earlier stages of the thread and as the thread matures we see that this post addresses the reasons as to why individuals would argue that Sachin is better than Lara.

Sachin can be interpreted as a brand, a well advertised one at that which has fooled many people that Sachin is better than Lara.

 

[used2bcool]

I think there's confusion over consistency and longevity. Obviously if these guys weren't consistent there would be no discussion about the greatest batsman of the era. My response to you was about considering a period of time when the batsmen in question were in their prime (but still a fairly long period, I will get to that) rather than bringing up Tendulkar's current Test batting rating as somehow relevant. By that measure, Tendulkar is better than Lara, Ponting, hell Bradman, because he has a Test batting ranking while all those guys are unranked. I'm sure you'd find that ridiculous, because it is.

I'm talking about comparing players over a sufficiently long peak period (say 10 years or more) and looking at their records. If we say that Lara's peak is from 1993-2005 (12 years, 117 tests, 10900+ runs @ 55, 31 hundreds) and Tendulkar's from 1993-2010 (17 years, 156 tests, 13400+ runs @ 59, 46 hundreds), you can see that Tendulkar's peak lasted longer and he beats Lara by every statistical measure, and there's really nothing to argue there. This is not my opinion, just plain numbers. Based on this evidence, I say Tendulkar was a better batsman than Lara.

Your bring up Warne and Murali's opinion, but they're just that - opinions. What's more, they're just two opinions. These guys made their money from being sensational spinners, not great cricket analysts. And having heard Warne on commentary over the past few months, I'm convinced that his opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt. In any case, I think numbers trump opinions, so this is a moot point.

I think your continual deriding of Murali as a chucker when every scientific test has cleared him doesn't really do a lot to build the credibility of your opinion.

My second point was about who I'd like to watch between the two. This is my opinion and has nothing to do with numbers. Lara had the left hander's natural grace and a extravagance in his strokeplay that was breathtaking. Both Tendulkar and Lara could destroy attacks, but Lara looked a little better. I loved watching Azharuddin because he was an artist. Was he better than Tendulkar? Absolutely not. I love watching Ian Bell because of his lazy, stylish grace. Is he a better batsman than Alastair Cook? Not really (well, maybe on current form). The same way, I liked watching Lara over Tendulkar. Was Lara a better batsman? No.

 

[Satan666]

I think there's confusion over consistency and longevity. Obviously if these guys weren't consistent there would be no discussion about the greatest batsman of the era. My response to you was about considering a period of time when the batsmen in question were in their prime (but still a fairly long period, I will get to that) rather than bringing up Tendulkar's current Test batting rating as somehow relevant. By that measure, Tendulkar is better than Lara, Ponting, hell Bradman, because he has a Test batting ranking while all those guys are unranked. I'm sure you'd find that ridiculous, because it is.

Yes it is ridiculous its nonsense.

I'm talking about comparing players over a sufficiently long peak period (say 10 years or more) and looking at their records. If we say that Lara's peak is from 1993-2005 (12 years, 117 tests, 10900+ runs @ 55, 31 hundreds) and Tendulkar's from 1993-2010 (17 years, 156 tests, 13400+ runs @ 59, 46 hundreds), you can see that Tendulkar's peak lasted longer and he beats Lara by every statistical measure, and there's really nothing to argue there. This is not my opinion, just plain numbers. Based on this evidence, I say Tendulkar was a better batsman than Lara.

Conveniently removes the last two years in which Sachin has failed to make your point. Similarly I can say that Lara's average on a particular day in 1994 was more than Sachin's on the same day and Lara happened to score a world record 375, that would put Lara ahead, but Sachin may not have even played cricket with his butler on that day, now thats what you call ridiculousness!

I was reading on some comments made by Sachin just recently where he stated that stats shouldnt be used for selecting players for Team India but rather temparament. I can understand you using stats to give Tendulkar the edge, any american college fan of baseball who knows nothing of cricket would also use the stats, twist them around and say that Sachin is better.

Your bring up Warne and Murali's opinion, but they're just that - opinions. What's more, they're just two opinions. These guys made their money from being sensational spinners, not great cricket analysts. And having heard Warne on commentary over the past few months, I'm convinced that his opinion is to be taken with a grain of salt. In any case, I think numbers trump opinions, so this is a moot point.

No I didnt made any illustrations towards their opinions, you stated that:
''Lara had that stylish, extravagant strokeplay that was something to behold when it came off, especially when he dismantled spinners.''

So I went on to emphasise on your point by giving the credentials of Mr. Warne and mr. Murali in order to justify Lara is a better batsman than Tendulkar.

I think your continual deriding of Murali as a chucker when every scientific test has cleared him doesn't really do a lot to build the credibility of your opinion.

In addition to stating my opinion I have posted the opinions of legends such as Punter and facts showing as to why Lara is better.

My second point was about who I'd like to watch between the two. This is my opinion and has nothing to do with numbers. Lara had the left hander's natural grace and a extravagance in his strokeplay that was breathtaking. Both Tendulkar and Lara could destroy attacks, but Lara looked a little better. I loved watching Azharuddin because he was an artist. Was he better than Tendulkar? Absolutely not. I love watching Ian Bell because of his lazy, stylish grace. Is he a better batsman than Alastair Cook? Not really (well, maybe on current form). The same way, I liked watching Lara over Tendulkar. Was Lara a better batsman? No.

Again this is your unsubstantiated opinion, similar to every other Tendulkar servant.

 

[used2bcool]

Conveniently removes the last two years in which Sachin has failed to make your point. Similarly I can say that Lara's average on a particular day in 1994 was more than Sachin's on the same day and Lara happened to score a world record 375, that would put Lara ahead, but Sachin may not have even played cricket with his butler on that day, now thats what you call ridiculousness!

I don't think you quite understand the concept of what's going on here. We were talking about comparing players at their peaks - clearly Tendulkar hasn't been at his peak in the last three years, so those have been removed, as have been the first 4 years of his career. Similarly I removed Lara's last two years (when he averaged less than 40 as opposed to a career average of 50+) and his first year because those were not his peak years. I have given you numbers from the period when these batsmen were at their best. And at his best, Tendulkar's numbers were better than Lara's. I haven't picked and chosen a certain date - I've given you periods of sustained excellence (12 and 17 years!). It's not stat twisting. It's better numbers.

So I went on to emphasise on your point by giving the credentials of Mr. Warne and mr. Murali in order to justify Lara is a better batsman than Tendulkar.

I understand that, and certainly those guys are entitled to their opinions, but I don't understand why they should hold so much water so as to form the basis of your argument! They're just opinions, and Murali and Warne are not really renowned cricket analysts. They were fantastic players. You have to admit there's a difference.

In addition to stating my opinion I have posted the opinions of legends such as Punter and facts showing as to why Lara is better.

I think you're giving undue importance to the opinions of these guys simply because they match your opinion. Where are the numbers to back it up?

Again this is your unsubstantiated opinion, similar to every other Tendulkar servant.

My opinion is hardly unsubstantiated. Hell, I spent the entire post substantiating my opinion with numbers! You on the other hand have no numbers. I'm about the farthest from a Tendulkar servant as you're likely to meet, which is why I preferred watching Lara. But the numbers don't lie. Tendulkar was better for longer. This is the difference between opinion and fact.

I think your blind hatred for all things Tendulkar will never allow you to see it this way even when the numbers are staring you in the face. So I'm sure you'll have a nice long tirade about how Lara is better based on some opinions. I really want to save you the trouble. So lets agree to disagree and move onto the Swann/Ajmal debate (where oddly enough, I think you and I are on the same side of the coin ).

 

[AkshayC]

Tendulkar is considered god but actually he ain't; Somebody has posted that the fact the Tendulkar's cricketing career flourished because he had support of players like Gangully, Dravid etc. Its like FCB Messi success is due to the fulcrum (Xavi, Inesta) he always had. Moreover

Lara leads in front

See mate its inevitable, all you guys arguing in Sachin's favour are not facing the facts, youre posting them like you just did above, but not accepting that Sachin is not a god but a meager mortal when compared to Lara.

Seconded ! Its kindda overrated fact. Sure he played many great innings; its nothing very unique. Probably after 10 years you all will be chanting Kohli THE GOD.

 

[used2bcool]

Tendulkar is considered god but actually he ain't; Somebody has posted that the fact the Tendulkar's cricketing career flourished because he had support of players like Gangully, Dravid etc. Its like FCB Messi success is due to the fulcrum (Xavi, Inesta) he always had.

I am completely against the deification of Tendulkar that goes on in our country.

You make it sound as though any old chump inserted into the Barcelona setup with Iniesta, Xavi, and company would have the same amount of staggering success that Messi has had and that's plain wrong. Messi has success because he's a once-in-a-generation talent. Similarly, Tendulkar may have been luckier in the support he received in from his team than Lara, but if he wasn't a once-in-a-generation talent, he wouldn't be where he is now. In any case, this is all conjecture. Where are the numbers?

Its kindda overrated fact.

What is "kindda" overrated?

Sure he played many great innings; its nothing very unique. Probably after 10 years you all will be chanting Kohli THE GOD.

Hahahahaha. Hoohoo. Hahahahahaha. Hehe. Hahahaha. No.

I'm sorry, but I cannot take you very seriously when you spew out garbage like that. "Sure he played many great innings; its nothing very unique." Nothing unique?! The sheer number of great innings played is pretty damned unique! How many other players do you know who have played that number of great innings? If it wasn't unique, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Also, the correct word is it's, which is a contraction for it is. You're welcome. I wish there was a Grammarslam for this one.

 

[AkshayC]

What is "kindda" overrated?

That he is a great player but people too much brag about him.

Hahahahaha. Hoohoo. Hahahahahaha. Hehe. Hahahaha. No.

I'm sorry, but I cannot take you very seriously when you spew out garbage like that. "Sure he played many great innings; its nothing very unique." Nothing unique?! The sheer number of great innings played is pretty damned unique! How many other players do you know who have played that number of great innings? If it wasn't unique, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Also, the correct word is it's, which is a contraction for it is. You're welcome. I wish there was a Grammarslam for this one.

Well I don't find anything logical except pointing out syntactical mistakes , writing your laugh & constant denials.

 

[used2bcool]

Well I don't find anything logical except pointing out syntactical mistakes , writing your laugh & constant denials.

Well, I was being rather snide. But I'm a grammar nazi so that comes with the territory.

I found your "he played many great innings but it's nothing special" argument pretty ludicrous. I was pointing out that he's played more great innings than most of his contemporaries, which I backed up with numbers in my previous post replying to Untouchables. So there's the logic, in case you didn't see it the first time.

I keep throwing numbers at you guys, and you keep coming back by claiming that I'm in "constant denial." If I'm in denial, where is the evidence to prove me wrong? Just because you wrote that Tendulkar is kind of overrated doesn't make it so. I'm willing to listen to anyone who has the numbers to show me just how overrated Tendulkar is and how that makes Lara a better batsman than him.

 

[Satan666]

Well, I was being rather snide. But I'm a grammar nazi so that comes with the territory.

I found your "he played many great innings but it's nothing special" argument pretty ludicrous. I was pointing out that he's played more great innings than most of his contemporaries, which I backed up with numbers in my previous post replying to Untouchables. So there's the logic, in case you didn't see it the first time.

I keep throwing numbers at you guys, and you keep coming back by claiming that I'm in "constant denial." If I'm in denial, where is the evidence to prove me wrong? Just because you wrote that Tendulkar is kind of overrated doesn't make it so. I'm willing to listen to anyone who has the numbers to show me just how overrated Tendulkar is and how that makes Lara a better batsman than him.

If we go by stats only, then Kallis should be revered as the batsman of the era, not Lara/Sachin/Punting, at present he boasts an average of 56, significantly higher than the trio, do you agree with this?

----------

I understand that, and certainly those guys are entitled to their opinions, but I don't understand why they should hold so much water so as to form the basis of your argument! They're just opinions, and Murali and Warne are not really renowned cricket analysts. They were fantastic players. You have to admit there's a difference.


I think you're giving undue importance to the opinions of these guys simply because they match your opinion. Where are the numbers to back it up?

The numbers to back it up is 375, 400, 277, etc for Lara, and a measly 248 for Tenders.

Dude, you posted that Lara is an obvious better player at spin, so I used the fact that Warne and Murali the most succesful spinners ever in the game played against Lara, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[used2bcool]

If we go by stats only, then Kallis should be revered as the batsman of the era, not Lara/Sachin/Punting, at present he boasts an average of 56, significantly higher than the trio, do you agree with this?

Ooh. Kallis is very interesting, and he gets such a rough deal when we have these arguments. By rights, Kallis should be in the discussion for the greatest cricketer of all time, not just the greatest batsman of this era. I think the fact that he's not particularly flashy with his batting or bowling counts against him. But it speaks volumes when commentators say that he's the most prized wicket in all of world cricket.

The numbers to back it up is 375, 400, 277, etc for Lara, and a measly 248 for Tenders.

You keep missing my point. I talked (ad nauseum) about a peak period and not peak days. You're telling me about individual innings and highest scores. That's like saying Matthew Hayden should be included in this discussion for his 385 against Zimbabwe. We are talking about consistency of performance during their peak years, not three days.

Dude, you posted that Lara is an obvious better player at spin, so I used the fact that Warne and Murali the most succesful spinners ever in the game played against Lara, this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. No, I didn't. I said Lara was breathtaking when he took apart spin attacks. I made absolutely no comparison between Lara and Tendulkar's prowess against spin bowling. We have both read each other's posts incorrectly, because I thought you were referring to Warne and Murali saying Lara was better than Tendulkar.

In any case, I can't find any website that compares Bowler vs Batsman stats so there's no way to prove whether Tendulkar or Lara handled Murali/Warne better.

 

[Satan666]

Ooh. Kallis is very interesting, and he gets such a rough deal when we have these arguments. By rights, Kallis should be in the discussion for the greatest cricketer of all time, not just the greatest batsman of this era. I think the fact that he's not particularly flashy with his batting or bowling counts against him. But it speaks volumes when commentators say that he's the most prized wicket in all of world cricket.


You keep missing my point. I talked (ad nauseum) about a peak period and not peak days. You're telling me about individual innings and highest scores. That's like saying Matthew Hayden should be included in this discussion for his 385 against Zimbabwe. We are talking about consistency of performance during their peak years, not three days.


No. No, I didn't. I said Lara was breathtaking when he took apart spin attacks. I made absolutely no comparison between Lara and Tendulkar's prowess against spin bowling. We have both read each other's posts incorrectly, because I thought you were referring to Warne and Murali saying Lara was better than Tendulkar.

In any case, I can't find any website that compares Bowler vs Batsman stats so there's no way to prove whether Tendulkar or Lara handled Murali/Warne better.

I think the difference is that you're only going with stats, and the stats which you have used clearly shows Tenders in front, I cant argue with that.

Similarly I can post some stat and show that Lara is better, but lets not go down that road. All I am saying is that we shouldnt use stats only there are many other factors other than pure stats over their peaks to take into consideration.

In the end I respect your opinion and appreciate your arguments. However as far as I am concerned Lara is a class above Sachin, Lara is the better batsman he is more talented and entertained all. Tenders has done well also, the amount of hundreds and number of matches he has played may never be eclipsed, all credit to him for that.